Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII/archive1

Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Spanish Navy joined the dreadnought building frenzy in the late 1900s, ordering the three smallest ships of the type, one of which was Alfonso XIII. All three ships met unfortunate ends; Alfonso XIII, by then renamed España and part of the Nationalist fleet during the Spanish Civil War, sank after striking a mine laid by another Nationalist vessel. Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * File:Acorazado España, ex-Alfonso XIII (en 1937).svg lacks reliable source for info.
 * I've asked the creator on Commons, hopefully they can answer (but they haven't edited in over a month, so we'll see).
 * Actually, he's already responded, the source has been added. Parsecboy (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandwiching is occurring between the infobox and left-aligned diagram
 * I'm not seeing it on my laptop - probably depends on the display you're using. I don't know that it's possible to prevent sandwiching across all display sizes.
 * On my display it looks similar to the screenshot image. No, it may not be entirely possible to prevent any sandwiching regardless of display, however, this particular case looks like the "do not do this" examples in MOS:IMAGELOC. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with every person whose resolution doesn't work perfectly with a given arrangement; if I move the image down a paragraph, it will likely cause a sandwich with Parkes' sketch for somebody else. Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus, most people read articles on mobile these days. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All images are free (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Buidhe. Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Note to coords that this article has not passed its image review as it does not meet MOS:IMAGELOC, which is part of the WP:FA criteria. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact, it does not meet IMAGELOC for you. There is simply no feasible way to ensure that image locations work equally well across all device sizes and resolutions. That you fail to understand that is your problem, not mine or this article's. Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It violates imageloc on my laptop, but with mobile presentation on my device, the infobox is above the prose. Imageloc is kinda iffy considering the sheer number of layouts users see pages on. Hog Farm Bacon 04:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that more than half of readers are using tablets and phones. My view on IMAGELOC is that something like
 * [[file:xyz|right]]
 * [[file:abc|left]]
 * with no intervening text should be avoided, since that will always sandwich text. But given the wide range of devices, and the trend toward small mobile devices, image placement should be treated generously. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is my view that this article in its current state does not violate IMAGELOC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Query by WerespielChequers
 * Hi, nice read thanks but I have a query and a suggestion, "that blocked the advance of Republican forces" - surely that should be "that blocked the advance of Nationalist forces"?
 * Good catch, yes
 * There are a lot of references to mines, including one that is linked to naval mines but I suspect the sentence "The ship's landing party went ashore to guard a rail line and several mines" refers to a different sort of mine. Given the amount of discussion of the other sort of mine in this article, it would make sense to add the type of mine in that case - coal or otherwise.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say what the mines were for, but I can link to Mining, which should clear up confusion, I think? Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that should work.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hog Farm
This may be claimed for WikiCup points.

Willing to discuss any of these comments, as usual. Hog Farm Bacon 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This currently lacks a short description. I'm not a Wikidata expert, but I think it's possible to add one either on here or at Wikidata.
 * Added
 * Since this ship was known as España, I can see a case for making a hatnote pointing to Spanish battleship España
 * Good idea
 * "At the end of the year, Alfonso XIII's crew won the Spanish Christmas Lottery" - I'm not convinced this is completely relevant. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.
 * My sense is, the lottery is a bigger deal in Spain than we might think (according to the source, "the winning ball from the tombola has been preserved for posterity in the naval museum at Ferrol.") This was a significant event of the ship's early career.
 * Yeah, it's probably significant if they preserved the tombola ball.
 * "The ship's landing party went ashore to guard a rail line and several mines" - All previous uses of mines are in reference to naval mines, so it takes some thinking to realize this is a reference to mineral mines. Is there a way to rephrase this?
 * It'd be nice if the source told us what kind of mines we're talking (I'd assume coal, but you never know)
 * "World War I on the side of the Entente" - Link Entente to Allies of World War I.
 * Wouldn't it be better to link to Triple Entente?
 * Oops, yes.
 * "which was at that time ruled by the dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera." - I'm not too familiar with Spanish history, so this may be a dumb question. Who was top dog: the king or the prime minister?  The earlier part of the article makes it sound like Alfonso XIII was in charge, but now Primo de Rivera is given as the leader.  Who was head of state?
 * The prime minister - Spain was more or less a constitutional monarchy, though the Dictatorship of Primo de Rivera was a bit different.
 * "The plan ultimately came to nothing" - Can it be briefly stated why?
 * Good idea, added a bit on this
 * "Some army detachments, including some coastal artillery units around the harbor, sided with Franco. The destroyer Velasco also defected to the Nationalist side" - This, and a later sentence, give the impression that the batteries and Velasco were Nationalists. But it earlier states that Franco was a Republican.  There looks to be a contradiction here.
 * Ah, I see the issue - the earlier sentence was malformed - Franco led the coup, not the government
 * SS Kostan is redlinked, but aren't a lot of freighters non-notable? If that's the case with this one, the redlink should be removed.  There's several other of these
 * You'd be surprised at the articles that can be written about seemingly nondescript freighters, particularly those that sank for one reason or another - SS Helsingfors (1903) is an example of a relatively small and obscure vessel
 * Link Dry dock at the first applicable point
 * Done
 * "Nuestra Señora del Carmen" - Is redlinked. A lot of merchant ships aren't notable.  Consider unlinking.
 * As above, it probably is at a basic level
 * I don't remember the exact guideline, but all sections of the article should be summarized in the lead. The Wreck section isn't.
 * Added a line
 * Thanks Hog Farm!. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor comments from The ed17
- do you have any further comments on this? Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to copyedit the awkward opening sentence, but I'm not sure that I'm totally happy with it. What is/are the most important thing(s) a reader needs to know straight from the opening sentence? (I don't think it is links to its classmates.)
 * How does this work for you?
 * " – this is a really confusing sentence. How does the conflict segue into diplomatic relations with different countries? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, exactly, but the improved relations with France and the UK played a major role in the ship being built. See if how I tweaked it makes it any clearer. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not returning to this, Parsec, and thanks for the ping. I'm good and support this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Be consistent in whether you include locations for publications
 * Done (I think)
 * Beevor should include an edition statement
 * I can't seem to find an edition number for the book
 * Be consistent in how volumes are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * Abbreviate shp in the infobox
 * Done
 * Provide a bore diameter for the 3 pounders. Does the source specify that they were saluting guns? If so, add that.
 * Done, but no mention of the purpose of the guns in R-G
 * Not at all sure that we need the second sentence of the lede to list her sisters. Suggest that you change the lede to state that she was the second of three ships in the class, delete the second sentence entirely, and add links to where ever they're named in the lede, being sure to add a link to sister ship.
 * Works for me
 * Suggest that you move the namesake to the construction para, not least because you have no source for that statement
 * I'm not sure what you mean here - in the intro or in the body?
 * Two issues. I prefer to put namesakes in the main body, generally wherever the construction info is, not the lede. And I don't see any source for the namesake statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's covered in the body as well - "...where the ship's namesake, King Alfonso XIII..."
 * received major damage awkward. Suggest "was fatally damaged"
 * Done
 * Trailing commas are missing after Cuba and Portugal
 * Fixed
 * Move the link for naval gunfire support to the first use in the first sentence of that para
 * Done
 * first aerial, naval, and land combined arms unpack this a little
 * Done
 * I also meant to explain the operation a little bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha.
 * perceived lack of prizes It wasn't just perceived, IIRC. Weren't the Italians supposed to get more territory than they actually received? Rephrase to clarify that it was the lack of territorial rewards, or some such.
 * I don't know, they got most of what they wanted in Europe - the main problem, I think, was that Britain and France got all of Germany's colonies
 * See the consequences para of Military history of Italy during World War I--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I'd point out that the specific issue at hand in 1923 was a dispute over colonies in Africa. That was the problem - Mussolini et. al. believed that Italy deserved greater colonial possessions in Africa (and obviously, Britain and France disagreed). I'd think getting into the Italian irredentism issue over Dalmatia and elsewhere is beyond the scope of this article.
 * Do Gibbons and Lyon actually have useful info on the ship that isn't available in the sources used?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Those had been cited in old versions of the article and when they were superseded by newer sources, I moved them to the further reading section; I haven't actually looked at either one to see if they're useful or not. Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think you will have further comments? -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  13:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)